Prophylactic biological mesh reinforcement versus standard closure of stoma site (ROCSS): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Occurrence and prevention of incisional hernia following laparoscopic colorectal surgery

Among minimally invasive surgical procedures, colorectal surgery is associated with a notably higher incidence of incisional hernia (IH), ranging from 1.7% to 24.3%. This complication poses a significant burden on the healthcare system annually, necessitating urgent attention from surgeons. In a study published in the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Fan et al compared the incidence of IH among 1614 patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal surgery with different extraction site locations and evaluated the risk factors associated with its occurrence. This editorial analyzes the current risk factors for IH after laparoscopic colorectal surgery, emphasizing the impact of obesity, surgical site infection, and the choice of incision location on its development. Furthermore, we summarize the currently available preventive measures for IH. Given the low surgical repair rate and high recurrence rate associated with IH, prevention deserves greater research and attention compared to treatment.

Prophylactic Biosynthetic Retrorectus Mesh Placement During Stoma Reversal Reduces the Rate of Stoma Site Incisional Hernia

INTRODUCTION

Stoma site incisional hernias (SSIHs) are associated with substantial long-term morbidity, and the rate can be as high as 30% to 40%. Recent efforts using prophylactic mesh reinforcement (PMR) to reduce the development of hernias have shown encouraging outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the use of prophylactic biosynthetic mesh at the time of stoma reversal on the overall SSIH rate.

METHODS

This is an observational retrospective cohort study. A review of 101 consecutive patients who underwent PMR in the retrorectus plane from 2015 to 2020 was compared to 73 consecutive patients who underwent primary stoma closure without mesh from 2011 to 2014. The primary endpoint was the presence of SSIH on clinical examination or computed tomography after ostomy takedown.

RESULTS

In total, 174 cases were analyzed with 101 patients in the treatment group (median follow-up 45.2 months) and 73 patients in the control group (median follow-up 43.2 months). There were no major differences in preoperative characteristics between the groups. Fourteen patients developed SSIHs with 1 (1.0%) in the treatment arm and 13 (17.8%) in the control arm (p = 0.001). The majority of stomas were loop ileostomies and end colostomies, and stoma type did not affect hernia rates. On univariate analysis, body mass index (p = 0.029) and chronic kidney disease < 3 (p = 0.003) were independent predictors of hernia formation, while mesh was significantly protective (p = 0.000057).

DISCUSSION

PMR with biosynthetic mesh at the time of stoma reversal and closure is an effective procedure to reduce the incidence of SSIHs and does not seem to be associated with an increased risk of complications.

Prophylactic Mesh Reinforcement for Non-Midline Incisions: A Systematic Review

Background

Many abdominal-pelvic surgeries utilize incisions not along the linea alba, such as transverse, laparoscopic, ostomy reversal, or ostomy formation incisions. The prevalence of ventral incisional hernias (VIH) at these sites and the efficacy of prophylactic mesh in preventing VIH remains unclear.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception to September 2022. We included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared prophylactic mesh reinforcement versus no mesh. The primary outcome was the incidence of VIH at postoperative follow-up equal to or greater than 24 months. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI) and surgical site occurrence (SSO).

Results

Of 3186 screened articles, only 3 RCTs with at least an 80% 2-year follow-up, encompassing a total of 901 patients, were included for analysis of non-midline VIH. Fifteen additional RCTs were included for analysis of secondary outcomes. The rate of parastomal hernias with prophylactic mesh was 21%, while it ranged from 44%-64% in the control group. The rate of incisional hernia after ostomy reversal with prophylactic mesh was 10%, and 16% in the control group. No clear evidence of a difference was found in rates of SSI or SSO between groups.

Conclusion

There is limited evidence on the role of prophylactic mesh in preventing non-midline VIH. More studies at low risk for bias are needed to elucidate the balance of the long-term risks and benefits of prophylactic mesh for non-midline incisions.

Reversal of stoma with biosynthetic mesh fascial reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Temporary stoma formation remains a common part of modern-day colorectal surgical operations. At the time of reversal, a second procedure is required when the bowel is anastomosed and the musculature is closed. The rate of incisional hernia at these sites is 30%-35% with conventional suture closure. Mesh placement at this site is therefore an attractive option to reduce hernia risk, particularly as new mesh types, such as biosynthetic meshes, are available. The aim of this work was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the use of mesh for prophylaxis of incisional hernia at stoma closure and to explore the outcome measures used by each of the included studies to establish whether they are genuinely patient-centred.

METHOD

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the published literature regarding the use of mesh at stoma site closure operations. Comprehensive literature searches of major electronic databases were performed by an information specialist. Screening of search results was undertaken using standard systematic review principles. Data from selected studies were input into an Excel file. Meta-analysis of the results of included studies was conducted using RevMan software (v.5.4). Randomized controlled trial (RCT) and non-RCT data were analysed separately.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with a total of 2008 patients were selected for inclusion, with various mesh types used. Of the included studies, one was a RCT, seven were nonrandomized comparative studies and three were case series. The meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies shows that the rate of incisional hernia was lower in the mesh reinforcement group compared with the suture closure group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12-0.37) while rates of infection and haematoma/seroma were similar between groups (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.41-1.21 and OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.63-1.80, respectively). The results of the RCT were in line with those of the nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates that mesh is safe and reduces incisional hernia. However, this is not commonly adopted into current clinical practice and the literature has minimal patient-reported outcome measures. Future work should explore the reasons for such slow adoption as well as the preferences of patients in terms of outcome measures that matter most to them.

Reinforced tissue matrix to strengthen the abdominal wall following reversal of temporary ostomies or to treat incisional hernias

BACKGROUND

Abdominal wall deficiencies or weakness are a common complication of temporary ostomies, and incisional hernias frequently develop after colostomy or ileostomy takedown. The use of synthetic meshes to reinforce the abdominal wall has reduced hernia occurrence. Biologic meshes have also been used to enhance healing, particularly in contaminated conditions. Reinforced tissue matrices (RTMs), which include a biologic scaffold of native extracellular matrix and a synthetic component for added strength/durability, are designed to take advantage of aspects of both synthetic and biologic materials. To date, RTMs have not been reported to reinforce the abdominal wall following stoma reversal.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness of using an RTM to reinforce the abdominal wall at stoma takedown sites.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients were selected with a parastomal and/or incisional hernia who had received a temporary ileostomy or colostomy for fecal diversion after rectal cancer treatment or trauma. Following hernia repair and proximal stoma closure, RTM (OviTex® 1S permanent or OviTex® LPR) was placed to reinforce the abdominal wall using a laparoscopic, robotic, or open surgical approach. Post-operative follow-up was performed at 1 month and 1 year. Hernia recurrence was determined by physical examination and, when necessary, via computed tomography scan. Secondary endpoints included length of hospital stay, time to return to work, and hospital readmissions. Evaluated complications of the wound/repair site included presence of surgical site infection, seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, or fistula formation.

RESULTS

The observational study cohort included 16 male and 12 female patients with average age of 58.5 years ± 16.3 years and average body mass index of 26.2 kg/m2 ± 4.1 kg/m2. Patients presented with a parastomal hernia (75.0%), incisional hernia (14.3%), or combined parastomal/incisional hernia (10.7%). Using a laparoscopic (53.6%), robotic (35.7%), or open (10.7%) technique, RTMs (OviTex® LPR: 82.1%, OviTex® 1S: 17.9%) were placed using sublay (82.1%) or intraperitoneal onlay (IPOM; 17.9%) mesh positioning. At 1-month and 1-year follow-ups, there were no hernia recurrences (0%). Average hospital stays were 2.1 d ± 1.2 d and return to work occurred at 8.3 post-operative days ± 3.0 post-operative days. Three patients (10.7%) were readmitted before the 1-month follow up due to mesh infection and/or gastrointestinal issues. Fistula and mesh infection were observed in two patients each (7.1%), leading to partial mesh removal in one patient (3.6%). There were no complications between 1 month and 1 year (0%).

CONCLUSION

RTMs were used successfully to treat parastomal and incisional hernias at ileostomy reversal, with no hernia recurrences and favorable outcomes after 1-month and 1-year.

X-Ray Visible Protein Scaffolds by Bulk Iodination

Protein-based biomaterial use is expanding within medicine, together with the demand to visualize their placement and behavior in vivo. However, current medical imaging techniques struggle to differentiate between protein-based implants and surrounding tissue. Here a fast, simple, and translational solution for tracking transplanted protein-based scaffolds is presented using X-ray CT-facilitating long-term, non-invasive, and high-resolution imaging. X-ray visible scaffolds are engineered by selectively iodinating tyrosine residues under mild conditions using readily available reagents. To illustrate translatability, a clinically approved hernia repair mesh (based on decellularized porcine dermis) is labeled, preserving morphological and mechanical properties. In a mouse model of mesh implantation, implants retain marked X-ray contrast up to 3 months, together with an unchanged degradation rate and inflammatory response. The technique's compatibility is demonstrated with a range of therapeutically relevant protein formats including bovine, porcine, and jellyfish collagen, as well as silk sutures, enabling a wide range of surgical and regenerative medicine uses. This solution tackles the challenge of visualizing implanted protein-based biomaterials, which conventional imaging methods fail to differentiate from endogenous tissue. This will address previously unanswered questions regarding the accuracy of implantation, degradation rate, migration, and structural integrity, thereby accelerating optimization and safe translation of therapeutic biomaterials.

Prevention of incisional hernia with retrorectus synthetic mesh versus biological mesh following loop ileostomy closure (Preloop trial)

BACKGROUND

The rate of incisional hernia after closure of a temporary loop ileostomy is significant. Synthetic meshes are still commonly avoided in contaminated wounds. The Preloop trial was a multicentre RCT designed to evaluate the benefits of synthetic mesh in incisional hernia prevention, and its safety for use in a contaminated surgical site compared with biological mesh.

METHODS

Study patients who underwent closure of a loop ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer were assigned to receive either retrorectus synthetic or biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia. The primary outcomes were surgical-site infections within 30 days, and clinical or radiological incisional hernia incidence at 10 months. Secondary outcomes were reoperation rate, operating time, duration of hospital stay, other complications within 30 days of surgery, 5-year quality of life measured by RAND-36, and incisional hernia incidence within 5 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Between November 2018 and September 2021, 102 patients were randomised, of whom 97 received the intended allocation. At 10-month follow-up, 90 patients had undergone clinical evaluation and 88 radiological evaluation. One patient in each group (2 per cent) had a clinical diagnosis of incisional hernia (P = 0.950) and one further patient in each group had a CT-confirmed incisional hernia (P = 0.949). The number of other complications, reoperation rate, operating time, and duration of hospital stay did not differ between the study groups.

CONCLUSION

Synthetic mesh appeared comparable to biological mesh in efficacy and safety for incisional hernia prevention at the time of loop ileostomy closure.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03445936 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Risk factors associated to incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aims to identify which risk factors are associated with the appearance of an incisional hernia in a stoma site after its closure. This in the sake of identifying which patients would benefit from a preventative intervention and thus start implementing a cost-effective protocol for prophylactic mesh placement in high-risk patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane library, and ScienceDirect was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting incidence, risk factors, and follow-up time for appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure were included. A fixed-effects and random effects models were used to calculate odds ratios' estimates and standardized mean values with their respective grouped 95% confidence interval. This to evaluate the association between possible risk factors and the appearance of incisional hernia after stoma site closure.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies totaling 2899 patients were included. Incidence proportion between included studies was of 16.76% (CI95% 12.82; 21.62). Out of the evaluated factors higher BMI (p = 0.0001), presence of parastomal hernia (p = 0.0023), colostomy (p = 0,001), and end stoma (p = 0.0405) were associated with the appearance of incisional hernia in stoma site after stoma closure, while malignant disease (p = 0.0084) and rectum anterior resection (p = 0.0011) were found to be protective factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic mesh placement should be considered as an effective preventative intervention in high-risk patients (obese patients, patients with parastomal hernia, colostomy, and end stoma patients) with the goal of reducing incisional hernia rates in stoma site after closure while remaining cost-effective.

PHaLIR: prevent hernia after loop ileostomy reversal-a study protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Rectal cancer is a common cancer worldwide. Surgery for rectal cancer with low anterior resection often includes the formation of a temporary protective loop ileostomy. The temporary ostomy is later reversed in a separate operation. One complication following stoma closure is the development of a hernia at the former stoma site, and this has been reported in 7-15% of patients. The best method to avoid hernia after stoma closure is unclear. The most common closure is by suturing only, but different forms of mesh have been tried. Biological mesh has in a randomized trial halved hernia incidence after stoma reversal. Biosynthetic mesh and retromuscular mesh are currently being evaluated in ongoing studies.

METHODS

The present multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, controlled study will compare standard suture closure of the abdominal wall in loop ileostomy reversal with retromuscular synthetic mesh at the stoma site. The study has been approved by the Regional Ethical Review board in Stockholm. Patients aged 18-90 years, operated on with low anterior resection and a protective loop ileostomy for rectal cancer and planned for ileostomy reversal, will be considered for inclusion in the study. Randomization will be 1:1 on the operation day with concealed envelopes. The estimated sample size is intended to evaluate the superiority of the experimental arm and to detect a reduction of hernia occurrence from 12 to 3%. The operation method is blinded to the patients and in the chart and for the observer at the 30-day follow-up. The main outcome is hernia occurrence at the stoma site within 3 years postoperatively, diagnosed through CT with strain. Secondary outcomes are operation time, length of hospital stay, pain, and 30-day complications.

DISCUSSION

This double-blinded randomized controlled superiority study will compare retromuscular synthetic mesh during the closure of loop ileostomy to standard care. If this study can show a lower frequency of hernia with the use of prophylactic mesh, it may lead to new surgical guidelines during stoma closure.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03720262. Registered on October 25, 2018.

The utilization of an absorbable mesh after ostomy reversal does not decrease incisional hernia rates

BACKGROUND

Postoperative ostomy reversal hernias are common and can create strain on the healthcare system. There is little literature evaluating the utilization of absorbable mesh following ostomy reversal. The effect on subsequent hernia rates at our institution has not been evaluated. We examine if the addition of absorbable mesh decreases the postoperative hernia rate in our patient population.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all ileostomy and colostomy reversals. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether an absorbable mesh was used at ostomy closure or not.

RESULTS

Hernia recurrence rates were lower in the group that had mesh reinforcement (8.96%) vs the group that did not receive a mesh (14.8%) though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.233).

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic use of an absorbable biosynthetic mesh did not alter the rate of incisional hernia rates following ostomy reversal in our cohort of patients.

Incidence, risk factors, and predictive modeling of stoma site incisional hernia after enterostomy closure: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) is a common complication, but its incidence and risk factors are not well known. The objective of this study is to explore the incidence and risk factors of SSIH and build a predictive model.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis on the patients who underwent enterostomy closure from January 2018 to August 2020. Patient's general condition, perioperative, intraoperative, and follow-up information was collected. The patients were divided into control group (no occurrence) and observation group (occurrence) according to whether SSIH occurred. Univariate and multivariate analysis were used to evaluate the risk factors of SSIH, following which we constructed a nomogram for SSIH prediction.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-six patients were enrolled in the study. The incidence of SSIH was 24.4% (38 cases), of which 14 were treated with hernia mesh repair, and the others were treated with conservative treatment. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that age ≥ 68 years (OR 1.045, 95% CI 1.002 ~ 1.089, P = 0.038), colostomy (OR 2.913, 95% CI 1.035 ~ 8.202, P = 0.043), BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR 1.181, 95% CI 1.010 ~ 1.382, P = 0.037), malignant tumor (OR 4.838, 95% CI 1.508 ~ 15.517, P = 0.008) and emergency surgery (OR 5.327, 95% CI 1.996 ~ 14.434, P = 0.001) are the independent risk factors for SSIH.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, a predictive model for the occurrence of SSIH was constructed to screen high-risk groups of SSIH. For patients at high risk for SSIH, how to deal with the follow-up and prevent the occurrence of SSIH is worth further exploration.

Prophylactic onlay mesh placement techniques for optimal abdominal wall closure: randomized controlled trial in an ex vivo biomechanical model

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernias occur after up to 40 per cent of laparotomies. Recent RCTs have demonstrated the role of prophylactic mesh placement in reducing the risk of developing an incisional hernia. An onlay approach is relatively straightforward; however, a variety of techniques have been described for mesh fixation. The biomechanical properties have not been interrogated extensively to date.

METHODS

This ex vivo randomized controlled trial using porcine abdominal wall investigated the biomechanical properties of three techniques for prophylactic onlay mesh placement at laparotomy closure. A classical onlay, anchoring onlay, and novel bifid onlay approach were compared with small-bite primary closure. A biomechanical abdominal wall model and ball burst test were used to assess transverse stretch, bursting force, and loading characteristics.

RESULTS

Mesh placement took an additional 7-15 min compared with standard primary closure. All techniques performed similarly, with no clearly superior approach. The minimum burst force was 493 N, and the maximum 1053 N. The classical approach had the highest mean burst force (mean(s.d.) 853(152) N). Failure patterns fell into either suture-line or tissue failures. Classical and anchoring techniques provided a second line of defence in the event of primary suture failure, whereas the bifid method demonstrated a more compliant loading curve. All mesh approaches held up at extreme quasistatic loads.

CONCLUSION

Subtle differences in biomechanical properties highlight the strengths of each closure type and suggest possible uses. The failure mechanisms seen here support the known hypotheses for early fascial dehiscence. The influence of dynamic loading needs to be investigated further in future studies.

National survey of colorectal surgery units on abdominal wall closure

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to assess the current status and knowledge of the Spanish colorectal surgeons on the wall closure.

METHODS

A single answer questionnaire of 25 closed questions was conducted using specific software for online surveys that was distributed to a cohort of colorectal surgeons.

RESULTS

53 surgeons replied to the survey. The vast majority prefer a closure of the midlaparotomy with a very slow absorbing monofilament (67.92%) continuous suture (96.23%) in a single plane (81.13%). Mass stitches, retention systems, and loop sutures continue to be used. The most commonly used suture gauge was USP 1 (United States Pharmacopeia) (58.49%). The most commonly used needle is with a cylindrical body and a trocar tip. Only 50%, routinely perform wall closure after placement of a trocar equal to or greater than 10 mm. Almost everyone knows the 4:1 rule and thinks it should be applied, but the small bites technique is not performed. 50% would never place a prophylactic prosthesis. The closure is usually performed by the same surgeon who has performed the entire procedure. One out of five confesses not knowing the rate of incisional hernias in his unit.

CONCLUSION

There is a lack of consensus and basic knowledge regarding the technical aspects of closure and the prevention of the appearance of incisional hernias. The use of slow absorbing monofilament continuous suture in a single plane seems well accepted.

Gastrointestinal procedures and anastomoses can be safely performed during complex abdominal wall reconstruction

INTRODUCTION

The literature regarding combined abdominal wall reconstruction and gastrointestinal surgery is limited and largely suggests staged procedures due to a reported increased incidence of surgical site infections (SSIs), hernia recurrence and anastomotic leak, but this exposes patients to the risks of two substantial procedures. This study evaluates the outcomes of single-stage GI surgery with complex abdominal wall reconstructions (CAWR) by a single surgeon.

METHODS

Analysis of 10 years of a prospectively maintained single surgeon CAWR database compared those who had CAWR-alone with those having concomitant gastrointestinal surgery (CAWR-GI) such as stoma reversal or bowel resection but excluding cholecystectomy, gynaecological surgery and adhesiolysis alone. Groups were compared using the paired t test (continuous data) and Fisher's exact test (nominal data).

RESULTS

Overall, 62 elective cases (42 CAWR-alone vs. 20 CAWR-GI) were analysed. Baseline demographics (age, BMI, co-morbidities, smoking status and hernia size) showed no differences; CAWR-GI mean operating time was significantly longer compared to the CAWR-alone group (5.4 h vs. 4.1 h) with an increased incidence of post-operative ileus in the intestinal group (40% vs. 11.9%, p < 0.05). Post-operative complications were common (chest infection (32.3%) and SSI (41.9%)), but similar between groups. There were no anastomotic leaks, and the hernia recurrence rate at almost 4 years median follow-up was 10% in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Performing simultaneous intestinal surgery during complex abdominal wall repair can be performed safely without increasing the risk of hernia recurrence, mesh infections or anastomotic leak. A careful choice of mesh implant is required.

Synthetic mesh versus biological mesh to prevent incisional hernia after loop-ileostomy closure: a randomized feasibility trial

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication after loop-ileostomy closure, rationalizing hernia prevention. Biological meshes have been widely used in contaminated surgical sites instead of synthetic meshes in fear of mesh related complications. However, previous studies on meshes does not support this practice. The aim of Preloop trial was to study the safety and efficacy of synthetic mesh compared to a biological mesh in incisional hernia prevention after loop-ileostomy closure.

METHODS

The Preloop randomized, feasibility trial was conducted from April 2018 until November 2021 in four hospitals in Finland. The trial enrolled 102 patients with temporary loop-ileostomy after anterior resection for rectal cancer. The study patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either a light-weight synthetic polypropylene mesh (Parietene Macro™, Medtronic) (SM) or a biological mesh (Permacol™, Medtronic) (BM) to the retrorectus space at ileostomy closure. The primary end points were rate of surgical site infections (SSI) at 30-day follow-up and incisional hernia rate during 10 months' follow-up period.

RESULTS

Of 102 patients randomized, 97 received the intended allocation. At 30-day follow-up, 94 (97%) patients were evaluated. In the SM group, 1/46 (2%) had SSI. Uneventful recovery was reported in 38/46 (86%) in SM group. In the BM group, 2/48 (4%) had SSI (p > 0.90) and in 43/48 (90%) uneventful recovery was reported. The mesh was removed from one patient in both groups (p > 0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

Both a synthetic mesh and biological mesh were safe in terms of SSI after loop-ileostomy closure. Hernia prevention efficacy will be published after the study patients have completed the 10 months' follow-up.

Prophylactic effect of retromuscular mesh placement during loop ileostomy closure on incisional hernia incidence-a multicentre randomised patient- and observer-blind trial (P.E.L.I.O.N trial)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent complication following loop ileostomy reversal. Incisional hernias are associated with morbidity, loss of health-related quality of life and costs and warrant the investigation of prophylactic measures. Prophylactic mesh implantation at the time of surgical stoma reversal has shown to be a promising and safe method to prevent incisional hernias in this setting. However, the efficacy of this method has not yet been investigated in a large multicentre randomised-controlled trial (RCT) with adequate external validity. The P.E.L.I.O.N. trial will evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after loop ileostomy closure in decreasing the rate of incisional hernia versus standard closure alone.

METHODS

P.E.L.I.O.N. is a multicentre, patient- and observer-blind RCT. Patients undergoing loop ileostomy closure will undergo intraoperative 1:1 randomisation into either abdominal wall closure with a continuous slowly absorbable suture in small-stitch technique without mesh reinforcement (control group) or abdominal wall closure with an additional reinforcement with a retromuscular non-absorbable, macro-pore (pore size ≥ 1000 μm or effective porosity >0%) light-weight monofilament or mixed structure mesh. A total of 304 patients (152 per group) will need to be randomised in the study. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1,014 patients are expected to be screened for eligibility in order to recruit the necessary number of patients. The primary endpoint will be the frequency of incision hernias within 24 months according to the European Hernia Society definition. Secondary endpoints will be the frequency of surgical site occurrences (including surgical site infections, wound seromas and hematomas, and enterocutaneous fistulas), postoperative pain, the number of revision surgeries and health-related quality of life. Safety will be assessed by measuring postoperative complications ≥ grade 3 according to the Dindo-Clavien classification.

DISCUSSION

Depending on the results of the P.E.L.I.O.N. trial, prophylactic mesh implantation could become the new standard for loop ileostomy reversal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DRKS00027921, U1111-1273-4657.

Incidence of incisional hernia after major colorectal cancer surgery & analysis of associated risk factors in Asian population: Is laparoscopy any better?

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is one of the common morbidities after major colorectal cancer surgery. We aim to compare the incidence of incisional hernias between laparoscopic and open surgery. We also aim to identify associated risk factors of incisional hernia among Asian population who has undergone major resection for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Data of patients who had undergone major colorectal cancer surgery in year 2015 from a single institution was collected. Data were extracted from electronic clinical records from our institution's database. Incisional hernias were identified by clinical examination and computed tomography (CT) scan performed during post-operative follow up as part of colorectal cancer surveillance. Follow up data of up to 3 years were extracted. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed to identify associated risk factors for development of incisional hernia. Propensity score matching analysis was performed for laparoscopic and open resection.

RESULTS

502 patients were included in the study. With a minimum follow up of 3 years, overall incisional hernia incidence rate of 13% was identified. Incisional hernias after laparoscopic and open surgery were 12.3% and 13.8% (p = 0.688) respectively. Univariate logistic regression analysis showed that body mass index (BMI) of >23kg/m2, ASA of III/IV and post-operative anastomotic leak were associated with development of incisional hernias. On multivariable analysis, female gender (OR 2.102, 95%CI: 1.155, 3.826), BMI of ≥23 kg/m2 (OR 2.862 95%CI: 1.582, 5.181), ASA III/IV (OR 2.052, 95%CI: 1.169, 3.602), were significantly associated with development of incisional hernia. Propensity scores matched analysis showed laparoscopic surgery did not significantly reduce the incidence of incisional hernia.

CONCLUSION

The overall incidence of incisional hernia seems lower in Asian population. Our study demonstrated no significant difference in incisional hernia rates between patients undergoing laparoscopic versus open colorectal cancer surgery. Female gender, higher BMI, and higher ASA are associated with increased risk of developing incisional hernia after major colorectal cancer resection.

A Cost-Utility Analysis of Mesh Prophylaxis in the Prevention of Incisional Hernias following Stoma Closure Surgery

BACKGROUND

Stoma closure is a widely performed surgical procedure, with 6295 undertaken in England in 2018 alone. This procedure is associated with significant complications; incisional hernias are the most severe, occurring in 30% of patients. Complications place considerable financial burden on the NHS; hernia costs are estimated at GBP 114 million annually. As recent evidence (ROCSS, 2020) found that prophylactic meshes significantly reduce rates of incisional hernias following stoma closure surgery, an evaluation of this intervention vs. standard procedure is essential.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis (CUA) was conducted using data from the ROCSS prospective multi-centre trial, which followed 790 patients, randomly assigned to mesh closure (n = 394) and standard closure (n = 396). Quality of life was assessed using mean EQ-5D-3L scores from the trial, and costs in GBP using UK-based sources over a 2-year time horizon.

RESULTS

The CUA yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of GBP 128,356.25 per QALY. Additionally, three univariate sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate an increased benefit with mesh prophylaxis, but at an increased cost. Although the intervention is cost-ineffective and greater than the ICER threshold of GBP 30,000/QALY (NICE), further investigation into mesh prophylaxis for at risk population groups is needed.

Retrorectus mesh reinforcement of ileostomy site fascial closure: stoma closure and reinforcement (SCAR) trial phase I/II results

PURPOSE

Loop ileostomy (LI) is commonly employed during colorectal surgeries to reduce the consequences of anastomotic leak. Unfortunately, LI is associated with a 10-30% incisional hernia (IH) rate after closure. We hypothesized that prophylactic mesh reinforcement during LI takedown would safely prevent subsequent IH formation.

METHODS

This single-center, phase I/II prospective study evaluated adult patients undergoing LI closure after left-sided colorectal cancer procedures. After LI closure, the posterior rectus sheath was mobilized and reapproximated with absorbable suture. A reduced-weight, macroporous, polypropylene mesh (Softmesh, BD) was placed in the retrorectus position to allow 3 cm of overlap and secured with fibrin sealant. The anterior fascia was closed with slowly absorbable suture. CT images obtained for cancer surveillance were reviewed by a radiologist blinded to the study intervention to evaluate for evidence of hernia or surgical site occurrence (SSO).

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included with mean defect and mesh sizes of 11.2 cm² and 64.2 cm², respectively. Mean operative time for LI takedown and mesh augmented closure was 84 min with mesh implantation time being 16.4 min. Two patients were readmitted within 30 days for ileus, no patient required procedural intervention. Over a mean follow-up period of 20 ± 7 months, no SSO or hernias were observed clinically or on CT imaging.

CONCLUSION

In our small series, retromuscular mesh reinforcement of LI closure appears feasible, safe and effective. This mesh reinforcement approach should be further investigated to evaluate its long-term effectiveness.

Efficacy and safety of mesh closure in preventing wound failure following emergency laparotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of emergency laparotomy closure with and without prophylactic mesh.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed via literature databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. Studies were examined for eligibility and included if they compared prophylactic mesh closure to the conventional laparotomy closure following emergency abdominal surgery. Both acute wound failure and incisional hernia (IH) occurence were our primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI), seroma/hematoma formation, Clavien-Dindo complications (score ≥ 3), total operative time, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four comparative studies with a total of 817 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall acute wound failure and incisional hernia rate was significantly lower in the mesh group compared to non-mesh group (odd ratio (OR) 0.23, p = 0.002) and (OR 0.21, p = 0.00001), respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the following outcomes: total operative time (mean difference (MD) 21.44, p = 0.15), SSI (OR 1.47, p = 0.06), seroma/haematoma formation (OR 2.74, p = 0.07), grade ≥ 3 Clavien-Dindo complications (OR 2.39, p = 0.28), and LOS (MD 0.26, p = 0.84).

CONCLUSION

The current evidence for the use of prophylactic mesh in emergency laparotomy is diverse and obscure. Although the data trends towards a reduction in the incidence of IH, a reliable conclusion requires further high-quality RCTs to fully assess the efficacy and safety of mesh use in an emergency setting.

An evidence map and synthesis review with meta-analysis on the risk of incisional hernia in colorectal surgery with standard closure

PURPOSE

To assess the incidence of incisional hernia (IH) across various type of incisions in colorectal surgery (CS) creating a map of evidence to define research trends, gaps and areas of future interest.

METHODS

Systematic review of PubMed and Scopus from 2010 onwards. Studies included both open (OS) and laparoscopic (LS). The primary outcome was incidence of IH 12 months after index procedure, secondary outcomes were the study features and their influence on reported proportion of IH. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled proportions. Meta-regression models were performed to explore heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ninetyone studies were included reporting 6473 IH. The pooled proportions of IH for OS were 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) I² 0% in midline laparotomies and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00-0.07), I² 52% for off-midline. In case of LS the pooled proportion of IH for midline extraction sites were 0.10 (95% CI 0.07-0.16), I² 58% and 0.04 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), I² 86% in case of off-midline. In Port-site IH was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.04), I² 82%, and for single incision surgery (SILS) of 0.06-95% CI 0.02-0.15, I² 81%. In case of stoma reversal sites was 0.20 (95% CI 0.16-0.24).

CONCLUSION

Midline laparotomies and stoma reversal sites are at high risk for IH and should be considered in research of preventive strategies of closure. After laparoscopic approach IH happens mainly by extraction sites incisions specially midline and also represent an important area of analysis.

PROphylactic MESH (PROMESH) for stoma closure: does it reduce the incidence of incisional hernia? Protocol for a triple-blinded randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Application of a prophylactic mesh during stoma closure was shown to reduce the incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure. Our objective is to provide high quality evidence to validate this finding.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The study will be a randomised controlled triple-blinded superiority parallel monocentric trial. Patients undergoing elective ileostomy or colostomy closure after surgery for digestive cancer will be eligible for inclusion. Patients allergic to the mesh, immunosuppressed or refusing to participate will be excluded. Randomisation will be performed based on a 1:1 allocation ratio between stoma closure with application of a non-absorbable mesh in the sublay position (intervention) and stoma closure without a mesh (control). The primary outcome will be the 1-year incidence of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure, determined clinically and by CT. Secondary outcomes will be the 31-day incidence of surgical site infection and the modified Carolinas Comfort Scale. Patients, radiologists and investigators performing the assessment at 1 year will be blinded for the allocated study group. Analysis will be performed in intention-to-treat. The trial will include 68 patients (34 with mesh, 34 without mesh).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The present randomised controlled trial was registered into clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04510558) and was accepted by the local ethic committee (Geneva, Switzerland: CCER 2021-00053). The results will be presented at national and international congresses in the fields of colorectal surgery and general surgery, and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

When to use a prophylactic mesh after stoma closure: a case-control study

Purpose

The closure of a stoma is frequently associated with an acceptable morbidity and mortality. One of the most frequent complications is incisional hernia at the stoma site, which occurs in 20%–40% of cases, higher than incisions in other parts of the abdomen. The objective of this study was to identify the risk factors associated with the presentation of incisional hernia after stoma closure, this in order to select patients who are candidates for prophylactic mesh placement during closure.

Methods

An unpaired case–control study was conducted. This study involved 164 patients who underwent a stoma closure between January 2014 and December 2019. Associated factors for the development of incisional hernia at the site of the stoma after closure were identified, for which it was performed a logistic regression analysis.

Results

41 cases and 123 controls were analyzed, with a mean follow-up of 35.21 ± 18.42 months, the mean age for performing the stoma closure was 65.28 ± 14.07 years, the most frequent cause for performing the stoma was malignant disease (65.85%). Risk factor for the development of incisional hernia at the stoma site after its closure was identified as a history of parastomal hernia (OR 5.90, CI95% 1.97–17.68).

Conclusions

The use of prophylactic mesh at stoma closure should be considered in patients with a history of parastomal hernia since these patients present a significantly higher risk of developing a hernia.

Collaboration in colorectal surgical research

Surgical research has been under-powered, under-funded and under-delivered for decades. A solution may be to form large research collaborations and thereby enable implementation of successful interventional trials as well as robust international observational studies with thousands of patients. There are many such research collaborations in colorectal surgery, and in this paper we have highlighted the experiences from the West Midlands Research Collaborative (WMRC), the Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group (SSORG) and the European Society of Coloproctology. With active research networks, it is possible to deliver large, high-quality studies and provide high-level evidence for solving important clinical questions in an efficient and timely manner.

Making large-scale surgical trials possible: collaboration and the role of surgical trainees

BACKGROUND

Recruitment to surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging. The Sunflower study is a large-scale multi-centre RCT that seeks to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-operative imaging versus expectant management in patients with symptomatic gallstones undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones. Trials such as Sunflower, with a large recruitment target, rely on teamworking. Recruitment can be optimised by embedding a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Additionally, engaging surgical trainees can contribute to successful recruitment, and the NIHR Associate Principal Investigator (API) scheme provides a framework to acknowledge their contributions.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods study that formed a component part of an embedded QRI for the Sunflower RCT. The aim of this study was to understand factors that supported and hindered the participation of surgical trainees in a large-scale RCT and their participation in the API scheme. It comprised semi-structured telephone interviews with consultant surgeons and surgical trainees involved in screening and recruitment of patients, and descriptive analysis of screening and recruitment data. Interviews were analysed thematically to explore the perspectives of-and roles undertaken by-surgical trainees.

RESULTS

Interviews were undertaken with 34 clinicians (17 consultant surgeons, 17 surgical trainees) from 22 UK hospital trusts. Surgical trainees contributed to patient screening, approaches and randomisation, with a major contribution to the randomisation of patients from acute admissions. They were often encouraged to participate in the study by their centre principal investigator, and career development was a typical motivating factor for their participation in the study. The study was registered with the API scheme, and a majority of the trainees interviewed (n = 14) were participating in the scheme.

CONCLUSION

Surgical trainees can contribute substantial activity to a large-scale multi-centre RCT. Benefits of trainee engagement were identified for trainees themselves, for local sites and for the study as a whole. The API scheme provided a formal framework to acknowledge engagement. Ensuring that training and support for trainees are provided by the trial team is key to optimise success for all stakeholders.

Prophylactic sublay non-absorbable mesh positioning following midline laparotomy in a clean-contaminated field: randomized clinical trial (PROMETHEUS)

BACKGROUND

Incisional hernia is a frequent postoperative complication after midline laparotomy. Prophylactic mesh augmentation in abdominal wall closure after elective surgery is recommended, but its role in emergency surgery is less well defined.

METHODS

This prospective randomized trial evaluated the incidence of incisional hernia in patients undergoing urgent midline laparotomy for clean-contaminated surgery. Closure using a slowly absorbable running suture was compared with closure using an additional sublay mesh (Parietex ProGrip™). Patients were randomized just before abdominal wall closure using computer-generated permuted blocks. Patients, care providers, staff collecting data, and those assessing the endpoints were all blinded to the group allocation. Patients were followed up for 24 months by means of clinical and ultrasonographic evaluations.

RESULTS

From January 2015 to June 2018, 200 patients were randomized: 100 to primary closure (control group) and 100 to Parietex ProGrip™ mesh-supported closure (mesh group). Eight patients in the control group and six in the mesh group were lost to follow-up. By 24 months after surgery, 21 patients in the control group and six in the mesh group had developed incisional hernia (P = 0.002). There was no difference between groups in the incidence of haematoma (2 versus 5; P = 0.248) and superficial wound infection (4 versus 5; P = 0.733). Multivariable analysis confirmed the role of mesh in preventing incisional hernia (odds ratio 0.11, 95 per cent c.i. 0.03 to 0.37; P  < 0.001). One patient in the mesh group required mesh removal because of deep infection.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh-augmented abdominal wall closure after urgent laparotomy in clean-contaminated wounds is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia. Registration number: NCT04436887 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

An RCT was conducted to compare the widely recommended midline laparotomy closure using a slowly absorbable running suture with closure using a sublay mesh (Parietex ProGrip™), in patients undergoing urgent midline laparotomy for clean-contaminated surgery. Patients were followed up for 24 months with clinical and ultrasonographic evaluation during outpatient visits. Prophylactic reinforcement of the midline abdominal wall, using a ProGrip™ Parietex mesh in the retromuscular position, at the time of urgent laparotomy in clean-contaminated wounds was safe and effective in reducing the incidence of incisional hernia, although larger studies with longer follow-up are required.

The Other Double Bubble Sign: Gastric Parastomal Hernia

Introduction: A parastomal hernia (PSH) is an abnormal herniation of an intra-abdominal organ or other tissue through an intentionally created fascial defect at an ostomy site. PSHs commonly involve reducible mobile segments of omentum, intra-abdominal fat, and bowel. However, PSHs may rarely involve fixed intra-abdominal organs such as the stomach.

Case Description: A 68-year-old female underwent emergent Hartmann procedure for Hinchey III diverticulitis and subsequently developed a large reducible parastomal hernia. She was scheduled for an elective laparoscopic colostomy reversal. Prior to her scheduled reversal, the patient presented to the ED with anorexia, lack of colostomy output, emesis, and pain localized to her left lower quadrant. She was found to have gastric outlet obstruction secondary to herniation of the stomach through the left lower quadrant colostomy site. The patient was admitted and treated conservatively with resolution of her symptoms, but due to the high likelihood of recurrence, the decision was made to proceed with laparoscopic Hartmann colostomy reversal with coloproctostomy and primary closure of the fascia without mesh.

Conclusion: The contents of a PSH can become incarcerated causing obstruction, strangulation, necrosis and even perforation over time. Fortunately, in this case, herniation of the stomach was recognized early. The patient underwent repair of the hernia defect in order to prevent recurrence of gastric herniation and its potential detrimental complications. The decision regarding the technical aspects of ostomy reversal in terms of mesh selection require further study. In our case, mesh was not used due to patient-specific factors and comorbidities.

Prevention of incisional hernia at the site of stoma closure with different reinforcing mesh types: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate safety and efficacy of a mesh reinforcement following stoma reversal to prevent stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH) and differences across the prostheses used.

Methods

A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify comparative studies until September 2020. A meta-analysis of postoperative outcomes and a network meta-analysis for a multiple comparison of the prostheses with each other were performed.

Results

Seven studies were included in the analysis (78.4% ileostomy and 21.6% colostomy) with a total of 1716 patients with (n = 684) or without (n = 1032) mesh. Mesh placement was associated with lower risk of SSIH (7.8%vs18.1%, OR0.266,95% CI 0.123–0.577, p < 0.001) than no mesh procedures but also with a longer operative time (SMD 0.941, 95% CI 0.462–1.421, p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of Surgical Site infection (11.5% vs 11.1%, OR 1.074, 95% CI 0.78–1.48, p = 0.66), seroma formation (4.4% vs 7.1%, OR 1.052, 95% CI 0.64–1.73, p = 0.84), anastomotic leakage (3.7% vs 2.7%, OR 1.598, 95% CI 0.846–3.019, p = 0.149) and length of stay (SMD − 0.579,95% CI − 1.261 to 0.102, p = 0.096) between mesh and no mesh groups. Use of prosthesis was associated with a significant lower need for a reoperation than no mesh group (8.1% vs 12.1%, OR 0.332, 95% CI 0.119–0.930, p = 0.036). Incidence of seroma is lower with biologic than polypropylene meshes but they showed a trend towards poor results compared with polypropylene or biosynthetic meshes.

Conclusion

Despite longer operative time, mesh prophylactic reinforcement at the site of stoma seems a safe and effective procedure with lower incidence of SSIH, need for reoperation and comparable short-term outcomes than standard closure technique. A significant superiority of a specific mesh type was not identified.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10029-021-02393-w.

Highly selective diversion with proactive leakage management after low anterior resection for rectal cancer

In this single center case series with nine percent primary diversion, 86 of 94 patients alive and with complete follow-up at one year had a functioning anastomosis. Seventy-five of the initial 99 patients never had a stoma. Meaning: Highly selective fecal diversion in combination with proactive leakage management, low anastomoses can be preserved safely, and the majority of patients will be spared all disadvantages of a diverting stoma.

Closure of stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

To evaluate comparative outcomes of the closure of temporary stoma site with or without prophylactic mesh reinforcement METHODS: A systematic online search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane database, The Virtual Health Library, Clinical trials.gov and Science Direct. Studies comparing the reversal of stoma with and without prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Stoma site incisional hernia (SSIH), surgical site infection (SSI), operative time, seroma formation, haematoma formation, bowel obstruction, anastomosis leak, length of hospital stay (LOS) and secondary operation to repair the SSIH were the evaluated outcome parameters.

RESULTS

Six comparative studies reporting a total of 1683 patients who underwent closure of stoma with (n = 669) or without (n = 1014) prophylactic mesh reinforcement were included. Use of mesh was associated with a significantly lower risk of SSIH (OR 0.22, P = 0.003) and need for surgical intervention to repair SSIH (OR 0.32, P = 0.04) compared with no use of mesh. However, it was associated with significantly longer operative time (MD 47.78, P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in SSI (OR 1.09, P = 0.59), bowel obstruction (OR 1.11, P = 0.74), seroma formation (OR 2.86, P = 0.19), anastomosis leak (OR 1.60, P = 0.15), haematoma formation (OR 1.25, P = 0.75) or LOS (MD - 0.45, P = 0.31) between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Prophylactic mesh reinforcement during the closure of temporary stoma may significantly reduce the risk of SSIH and surgical intervention to repair the hernia without increasing the risk of SSI or other morbidities. However, it may increase the procedure time. Future higher-quality randomised evidence is required.

The lateral rectus abdominis positioned stoma (LRAPS) in the construction of end colostomies, loop ileostomies and ileal conduits

BACKGROUND

Stomas are traditionally constructed through the belly of the rectus muscle. Parastomal herniation is common with the use of mesh prophylaxis still deliberated.

METHODS

A novel trephine, the lateral rectus abdominis positioned stoma or LRAPS, that minimises damage to the musculature of the anterior abdominal wall, has been used in the construction of end colostomies, loop ileostomies and ileal conduits.

RESULTS

In a cohort of 106 patients with end colostomy, the cumulative rate of parastomal herniation at 1, 2 and 3 years were 6, 10 and 17%, respectively. In 56 patients in whom an ileal conduit was performed, there was no clinical or radiological evidence of parastomal herniation at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to a traditional trephine through the belly of the muscle, this technique avoids damage to the rectus abdominis muscle. Early symptomatic parastomal herniation is unusual after LRAPS.

Potential research participants' use of information during the consent process: A qualitative pilot study of patients enrolled in a clinical trial

There is increasing evidence that clinical trial participants are uninformed about the trials in which they participate, raising ethical concerns regarding informed consent. The aim of this pilot study was to explore clinical trial participants' use of consent discussions and information sheets when considering participating in clinical trials research. A qualitative, interview-based pilot study was designed in order to elicit, through dialogue, details of the reasons for participants' use of, and preferences regarding, different modes of information provision. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with two different groups of patients who were participants in the Reinforcement of Closure of Stoma Site trial. The first group comprised newly-consented trial participants, who had been recruited up to 72 hours before our interview; the second group comprised patients attending a follow-up clinic 12 months after joining the trial. Thirteen participants were recruited in total: three newly-consented patients, and ten follow-up patients. The study found that participants' use of consent discussions to gain information about clinical trials was varied, and that they only minimally used information sheets after providing initial consent for the trial. Participants demonstrated varying degrees of knowledge about the trial, with some having forgotten that they were still involved in the trial. Participants reported a high level of trust in medical staff as a reason for not seeking more information about the trial. Some participants reported dissatisfaction with the timing of information provision. Some were amenable to novel ways of receiving trial information, such as web-based methods. The pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of a larger study into the provision of information to prospective clinical trial participants. The results suggest that considering alternative ways of providing information and the appropriateness of existing information provision may be acceptable to and useful for potential trial participants.